Memory Alpha talk:Featured article reviews
Opposed reconfirmations Would I be correct in assuming that an opposed reconfirmation, which then fails to gain consensus after the requisite time under the Memory Alpha:Featured article nomination policy would be stripped of its FA status? This page doesn't really give an answer. –Cleanse ( talk | ) 01:26, December 1, 2011 (UTC) :Yes. The wording of this page, and how much of the policy should be covered at Memory Alpha:Featured article nomination policy#Reconfirming an article is still open to debate. I think the policy should be covered there with a link here, but since this is a new system, I went with both, more of less. The wording of both most likely needs a few tweaks still. - 01:35, December 1, 2011 (UTC) :It should also be noted that bringing up an article for reconfirmation isn't automatically a support, like it is for the original nomination, so placing a Support or Oppose somewhere in the text would be helpful. - 01:39, December 1, 2011 (UTC) Alright. Another question. "At least one vote needs to be cast". Does that then mean that (if no one else comments) someone can be both the nominator and the lone vote supporting reconfirmation?–Cleanse ( talk | ) 01:56, December 1, 2011 (UTC) :Yes. The idea is that, when there isn't a huge backlog, articles over two years old should be brought up "automatically" more or less. This is why current the articles needed to be staggered. I figured when we get to a reasonable backlog the system might be tweaked to do that better, like adding a notice of articles that need reconfirmation on the purposed editing portal. The idea is to get though these first, see how it works in use, and make adjustments as necessary. :) - 02:09, December 1, 2011 (UTC) :Hopefully the recent update to the nomination policy cleared up and clarified any wording issues with how this should work. - 03:50, December 1, 2011 (UTC) Reconfirmations vs nominations Comment:Moved from a reconfirmation after the opposition stated above. Will now need to be nominated according to full FA policy, or FA status be removed. -- Cid Highwind 17:53, December 5, 2011 (UTC) :It doesn't move, it's still a reconfirmation, we're just using the nomination rules on this one now (5 supports instead of just one, two weeks of inactivity instead of just two weeks period, etc). - 01:15, December 6, 2011 (UTC) That's a mess... -- Cid Highwind 08:16, December 6, 2011 (UTC) :It's the only way to close the massive loophole that would let you bypass the one nomination/reconfirmation per user in both this and the nomination system. I'm open to ideas how that could be made clearer in the text of the policy, and I'm sure after a few of these the hiccups will have been ironed out. ;)- 08:34, December 6, 2011 (UTC) Which accidentally I managed to do by nominating another one here after moving the first one out... won't happen again. I added a small change to the policy already, let's move further stuff to talk. :) -- Cid Highwind 08:43, December 6, 2011 (UTC) :Its a new system, no worries. :) I've moved this to the talk page, since it's more about the policy than the article. - 08:56, December 6, 2011 (UTC) :Edit conflict: We just had two issues with opposed reconfirmations: *Regarding M-113 creature, turns out that an opposed reconfirmation does not get moved to FA nominations, but stays here and is just handled according to the same rules. I tried to clarify this in the policy - please check whether I succeeded there. *Regarding Landru, the comment has been made that simple FA removal is still an option. That's true, but to be honest, I would always choose the way of a "pre-opposed reconfirmation" in the future, because that means an article will need unanimous 5-vote support (and probably become better along the way) to stay an FA - whereas it is simpler for it to stay FA through the other process. I don't consider that to be a policy loophole either, because an FA should be as good as it gets - which means it should be able to survive the more complex process at least once every two years. That would make FA removal mostly an option to be used to get rid of an FA that is not two years old yet. -- Cid Highwind 08:59, December 6, 2011 (UTC) :I'm fine with the wording as it is now, though if anyone sees a way to improve it, please do. :I believe it was mentioned in passing on the forum that the removal system should be updated to reflect the changes to the other systems with the inclusion of this one. I'm pretty sure that needs to be done for the very reason you stated, that it will deliberately not be used. - 09:11, December 6, 2011 (UTC) If we do that, do we still need two different process pages if both work alike? In that case, I would suggest the following: we keep FA nominations (of course) and FA removal (changed to work like FA reconfirmation does, now) - but instead of having a third page for reconfirmations, we just have a list of "old FAs" there, stating that FAs older than two years will need to survive a removal discussion on the FA removal page - or are removed without prior discussion once they get older than, say, three years. We would of course clear the current backlog first, so that no FA gets removed right now. -- Cid Highwind 09:19, December 6, 2011 (UTC) :My problem with moving this to removal is that discussions here are not inherently for removal. This process doesn't make the implication, it leaves the status of the article (still FA material or not) to the user. That said, I do question the need for a separate page that can only effectively cover a 18 month time frame. It makes more sense to me to merge the removal discussions here, since a removal discussion is asking us to either "confirm again" an article's FA status or not, as oppose to asking us to remove an "old" FA or not. We could allow for a "removal/opposed reconfirmation discussion" to happen early, after at least 6 months and in a different section than the two we have now, so long as a another user supports it. :As for an automatic removal point, four years would be better IMO, since that says we didn't reconfirm the article twice, instead of just fell behind because of that 6 month vacation we all took with the money we're paid to be here. ;p - 10:05, December 6, 2011 (UTC) A rose, ... :) I wouldn't mind calling the merged process a "reconfirmation" instead of a "removal", as long as it still can achieve both. Just to make that explicit: the implication of merging processes is that, if an attempted removal fails, the article will stay an FA - but it's the more current revision that gets the title (and as such, any timers such as the "automated reconfirmation after two years" one are reset). That seems only fair, because it underwent the scrutiny of a full FA process in that case. It means we'll have the following timeframes: *0-6 months after last Featuring: FA status is sacrosanct *6-24 months: status can be brought up for reconfirmation, but needs at least two oppose votes (initiator + second) to start full FA process *24-48 months: status can be brought up for reconfirmation, only one oppose necessary for full FA process *48+ months: status can be removed without prior discussion. Correct? -- Cid Highwind 10:32, December 6, 2011 (UTC) :Yes, after the backlog of course. :) :The only two reasons I can think of for why a FA should have a problem in under six months is if some massive changes for the worse happened or another movie/episode/reference guide came out and the article is then incomplete. Something like either of those should be handled on the article's talk page before making it here. So the wording should say something like "FAs shouldn't be considered for removal (or other term) until after six months from the last "featured date" (or other term) except in extraordinary circumstances." We should always allow a "removal" discussion if there is good reason, just that there should be a consensus before using the page if the article is a "new" FA. - 10:54, December 6, 2011 (UTC) ::Just wanted to say that I've reviewed the above, and agree that removal and reconfirmation should be combined into one page somehow.--31dot 11:56, December 6, 2011 (UTC) Reduction of time required Considering the backlog we have for the reconfirmations, I'd like to suggest a finetuning: If a FA is reconfirmed with 5 votes, with no objections, prior to the mandatory two weeks waiting time, it has passed (in theory therefore it can pass within a day.) Up for your consideration...Sennim 03:48, December 4, 2011 (UTC) :It is true that at two reconfirmations every two weeks we'll be dealing with this backlog for roughly the next two and a half years, though a day is way too short a time for this. Reducing the amount of time these take to a week if there is 5 or more support votes and no opposition might be an a good idea, as that was essentially the old FA nomination. Either way, the two currently up for reconfirmation shouldn't be effected by any change. - 05:05, December 4, 2011 (UTC) ::I support Archduk3's idea – that seems reasonable. Also Sennim, if you want to help out with the backlog, you can nominate an articles for reconfirmation yourself, one at a time. :-) –Cleanse ( talk | ) 05:48, December 4, 2011 (UTC) :Yes, that would be a big help. I was going to create a user project for this after the current two finished, but this change might make that unnecessary. - 05:56, December 4, 2011 (UTC) :::If there's both a minimum time overall (like 1 week as suggested by Archduk3) and at least a little delay between the "final support vote" and the conclusion (like, for example, waiting 24 hours after the last support vote has been cast) to avoid gaming the system, I'd be fine with that. It would only be a temporary measure to get through the backlog more quickly, I guess? -- Cid Highwind 20:17, December 4, 2011 (UTC) :I think the idea was a permanent change, since we could be back in the same boat in two years or so. Stating that 24 hours needs to have passed since the fifth support seems reasonable though. - 23:32, December 4, 2011 (UTC) Blurbs As Cid has pointed out, FAs now need blurbs, so a reconfirmation of a FA without one should create one, using the same system at MA:FANOM. Instructions could also be added here that a link to the blurb is required as part of the reconfirmation, since blurbs should also be reconfirmed at the same time. That said, we need to clarify that either an objection to the blurb does trigger the need for the full FA nomination requirements, or that an objection to the blurb isn't an objection to the article but (of course) needs to be resolved before the end of the reconfirmation. - 23:32, December 4, 2011 (UTC) :I think the latter would be more sensible here. If the article itself is fine, a bad blurb objection should stall the reconfirmation (and if stalling means failing, then so be it*), but not make necessary a whole different and more complex process. :*Thinking about it, the only valid objections to the blurb itself might be that a) it doesn't exist at all or b) it's not the same as the first paragraph(s) of the article or c) it is too long/short, so it should always be possible to resolve that kind of objection. -- Cid Highwind 23:49, December 4, 2011 (UTC) I pretty much agree with your thinking on this. This is what I have in mind for the wording change here: "Reconfirmations can be started by beginning a new discussion under either "Nominations without objections", for articles you support or have no preference to, or "Nominations with objections", for articles you oppose, with a heading containing a link back to the article you want to suggest. Discussions should have a link to the blurb used on the main page, located at Template:FA/ , and it's generally a good idea to link to the FA history on the article's talk page as well. If you have a preference on the article, please briefly state why." ...and at the policy: "Any objections to the main page blurb are independent of the article and should be resolved before the reconfirmation ends." I would also insert "for the article" after support in "If support during the reconfirmation is unanimous..." - 00:16, December 5, 2011 (UTC) :The first two changes sound good. Not sure if the final one (insertion of "for the article") is really correct - because, as stated above, opposition to a blurb would stall the renomination and as such lead to the reconfirmation not going through after fourteen days, even if otherwise unanimous. :Another thing, asking here because I'm a little lost with all the current changes: Did we specify a recommended length for the main page blurb? If we haven't yet, I think we should, so that all our main page blurbs are at least approximately of the same length. I suggest a article length of about 1200 characters (+/- 100) for the template subpage (like Template:FA/M-113 creature). Allowing for some non-printed characters (like formatting or the thumbnail code), this should translate to about 1KB of pure text. -- Cid Highwind 13:31, December 5, 2011 (UTC) OK, I see what you were saying now. I wanted the "for the article" part inserted to help differentiate between the two, though if the reduction of time is cool with everyone that whole bit might need to be reworded. In any case, the change to the policy page could be: "Any objections to the main page blurb are independent of the article, though a successful reconfirmation can not end until 24 hours after all objections to the blurb are resolved." As for the length of blurbs, I don't know of any limit to the size, though I agree there should be a guideline about it, since a few of them were/are pretty long. It might make more sense to use a "blank" template to help with writing them though, instead of a character limit, like so: Template:FA/template. This could be used like the sandbox page, where a blurb can be written and then deleted after it's transferred elsewhere. A link to this could be added to the nomination and reconfirmation pages in case anyone wants to used it, and already written blurbs can be fitted to it. - 14:26, December 5, 2011 (UTC) :I'm not sure how that template-template is supposed to work. There are DIVs that would need to be removed before writing stuff, wouldn't that actually complicate things? What I had in mind was a simple suggestion like: ::"Blurb templates should contain one image about their topic as a standard thumbnail, and should not exceed 1,200 bytes. You can check the history of the template page for its current size in bytes." :-- Cid Highwind 15:34, December 5, 2011 (UTC) Those div are the point, since if you go longer than 475px in adds a scroll bar, so you would know the blurb is too long. If the idea is to enforce a max size, you should be able to see it in the preview or after saving without having to check another "page". - 15:45, December 5, 2011 (UTC) :OK. The div has a different width in preview than after saving, though - and client-side differences (like different browsers, or installed fonts, or CSS overrides) might further add to those differences. Furthermore, if previewing doesn't work, the necessary steps seem to be slightly more complicated with this (write, save, check, perhaps rewrite and check again, then edit again to copy wikicode and paste it elsewhere) than with the idea of checking the byte size in the history and be done with it - because content is on the correct page already. I wouldn't mind that div-preview-thingy as an additional help (if it works for you, great), but I wouldn't want to rely on it myself when writing blurbs. Let's have both a byte size range and that template, then... -- Cid Highwind 16:34, December 5, 2011 (UTC) Both standards can be used, so long as they line up mostly, but the current system (the old AotW system) is that blurbs are placed directly on the nomination page until they are approved. We could change that, but I don't really like the idea of an article being in a position to be confused with a FA before it is one. - 16:54, December 5, 2011 (UTC) :There's something else (but related) we should talk about: currently, blurbs are supposed to be located on a subpage of , using the name of the article. I admit it's unlikely that an FA candidate article gets deleted or merged, but renaming is at least a possibility. In any case, there's currently no connection between an article and its blurb. It might be more sensible to place blurbs on a subpage of the article itself (like ARTICLE/blurb) - in which case, blurbs could be created independent of an existing FA status and without fear of confusing them with an FA. -- Cid Highwind 17:03, December 5, 2011 (UTC) Memory Alpha is suppose to be "flat", with no subpages in the main namespace beyond temporary ones or cases like Em/3/Green, so I don't think we should create an exception for these. That said, there should be a link to the blurb on the article, most likely created automatically though the FA template at the bottom of the page. A broken link/missing blurb message after a move should be enough to gain attention in case the blurb is forgotten. I would also think having the blurb directly on the nomination page would help keep them "small" regardless of any guideline, since longer ones would push the page further down than it already is with the instructions. - 17:28, December 5, 2011 (UTC) As for using both standards for sizing, I based the template box size on the current Bell Riots blurb, which is 1,859 bytes. I consider this to be pretty much the upper limit of what size we should be using, but it is a nearly 660 byte difference with the suggested 1,200 byte limit. - 11:23, December 6, 2011 (UTC) :Well, I used the (totally infallible ;)) metric of "I really wouldn't want to read more than that!" after creating Template:FA/M-113 creature - and actually, I just found out that Wikipedia suggests the same length for their main page blurbs here (section "Suggested formatting"). While we don't need to do things just because WP does the same, there seems to have been some thought put into their suggestions. Perhaps we should also think about other things like removing links (we want to present one specific article, after all, and not a bunch of articles that just happen to be linked from the top of that article). -- Cid Highwind 14:42, December 6, 2011 (UTC) I would agree that we don't need links to any other articles, though I still think 1,200 bytes is on the small size. If anything, I think the guideline should be around 1,200 bytes to around 1,800 bytes, since these are also displayed on the full width portals pages (and might be even more so soon) and that the smaller blurbs tend to look rather spartan. Another thing to consider is that the Dominion War blurb has thousands of bytes for just the "image" and image sizes aren't standard either. - 15:40, December 6, 2011 (UTC) :Actually, I saw you test the Dominion War blurb, and thought to myself: "What's the fraking table supposed to do there?" :) I've never been a fan of these even in the article itself (mostly used in form of battle outcome comparisons), and I'm even less convinced that they are a good idea in a blurb. Dominion War has so many great shots to choose from (for example this), why not use one of those instead? So, I think on top of a length guideline, we should have some image guideline (one image from the article; standard aspect ratio preferred; included as standard thumbnail; no weird table constructions) - which would solve the potential problem of a "non-standard" image leading to much more or less space used. Since the suggested range of 1,200-1,800 bytes falls completely outside of the range I last suggested (1,200 at most), I think we should hear the opinion of some others here, first). -- Cid Highwind 16:11, December 6, 2011 (UTC) Known errors with the list Apparently switching to for the sortkey will reset the time the article was added to the old featured articles category. Just posting for possible future reference. - 11:35, December 6, 2011 (UTC)